I agree with your take on this, that this article is another piece of pure Luskin-orchestrated disclosures and spin. (That is what I speculated last night on a previous thread here.) Unlike over at FDL, I don’t see this as a sign of VandeiHei all of a sudden taking a bold new approach.

Man, Typepad sucks. Anyway, copied from the second post I’m about to delete:

Here’s what I think is going on with the Tenet mea culpa dispute. Rove (and Libby) testified to not learning of Plame’s identity until after July 9 (in the case of Rove, from Novak) and July 10 (in the case of Libby, from Russert). We know they actually DID know, very well, about Plame by that point, but for some reason, they wanted to postpone the discovery of that time to after July 9.

But they’ve got correspondence that proves they were investigating aspects of Wilson’s trip, and they were discussing classified information, before that time. I suspect strongly they also were discussing Wilson’s 1999 trip to Niger, which is/was also supposed to be classified. I’m not sure whether this mentions Plame–apparently the â€Plame recommended Wilson†fiction originated in the fact that she DID recommend Wilson for the 1999 trip, so it is quite likely it did mention Plame, in the context of that earlier trip.

So having tried to hide this early work when they first testified, Rove (and possibly Libby) are trying to pretend they were discussing these things only with an eye toward getting Tenet to issue a statement taking the blame. So far, at least, it appears that Tenet (and certainly Bill Harlow) are going to tell a different story.

I want to comment on two comments EPUed in the last thread. From Jeff:

Two other interesting bits in the article. First, it seems to revert to July 8 (not July 9) as the date of the Rove-Novak contact. There has been a lot of unclarity about this, and my best sense has been that Novak tried to get in touch with Rove on July 8, and they didn’t talk until July 9. The Post article does leave open the possibility that Novak called Rove on July 8, and might have left some message with the info about the Wilsons then, although it appears to detail an actual conversation.

Here’s the passage in question:

Evidence made public suggests Rove was particularly involved in rebutting Wilson after the former ambassador wrote a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed piece charging that Bush had â€twisted†intelligence. Two days later, columnist Robert D. Novak called Rove and told him that he had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and helped arrange his Niger mission.

Rove testified that he told Novak, â€I heard that, too,†according to a source close to Rove.

A few days later, Rove told Libby about Novak’s plan to write a column about Wilson and his wife, according to court filings by Fitzgerald. This is the only evidence to emerge publicly so far of Rove and Libby discussing Wilson’s efforts.

Great catch, I think this really suggests RoveCo is trying to obscure the number of times or the day he spoke to Karl (and subsequently spoke to Libby; note that if he spoke to Libby on July 11, he may have discussed the Cooper call, which would blow his defense out of the water).

But we should also remember this:

On July 9, 2003, senior presidential adviser Karl Rove was well prepared as he returned a telephone call from columnist Robert Novak. On his desk were talking points and other briefing materials that then-White House Political Director Matt Schlapp and other staffers had compiled for Rove in anticipation of the conversation.

[snip]

Just before his July 9 conversation with Rove, Novak had been relentlessly calling around the White House asking questions about Townsend. Adam Levine, then an assistant White House press secretary and a Rove protege, told Rove that Novak had called, and that Novak was upset that Rove had not called him back. Levine would say later that he was uncertain whether Novak had stated the purpose of the call.

On July 8, Rove’s secretary wrote Townsend’s name on a telephone message slip, indicating that Townsend was the subject of Novak’s inquiry. It was then that Rove instructed his staff to prepare briefing materials for him to have on hand to answer Novak’s questions on Townsend.

I’ll remind everyone that Levine testified again last Fall. I’m also curious whether the secretary who took Novak’s message on July 8 was Susan Ralston, she of the non-recorded phone log. In any case, the ambiguity in VandeHei’s latest, as well as this Waas, seems to suggest strongly that Novak called Rove on July 8 and Rove returned the call on July 9, when they claim to have had their substantive discussion. There is all sorts of room for a cover story there, most notably that Novak didn’t call on July 8 at all, or that Ralston or someone else fixed the message after the fact, or that Rove invented the Townsend smear excuse after the fact, in the same way that I (very lonely) suggest he invented the welfare reform excuse after the fact.

And from Jim E:

What this WashPost story makes me wonder about is a point that Tom Maguire brought up a week or so ago. TM wrote, â€*IF* Rove’s team is expecting an imminent indictment and *IF* Rove’s testimony includes some similar bombshell, look for the deflating, heads-up leak.†(Cheney’s knowledge of Plame was reported just prior to Libby’s indictment.)

I think it’s possible this is expectation setting, leaking the news that Rove definitively spoke to other people the week of the leak. In fact, he may just (finally) be revealing what all the unexpected questions were. This would jibe with my suspicion that they’re going to claim the pre-July 9 conversations related to the Tenet statement, not the leak. But we also ought to keep our eye out for coaching. What if, say, Andy Card mysteriously showed up at the GJ on Wednesday? In which case this might be an attempt to give Card some excuses for Rove’s earlier gabbing. Not that Card would necessarily use it.

I still think Tweety’s in up to his eyeballs in this mess. I think Libby’s afraid to subpoena him, because Matthews has said to Wilson that he’s willing to testify truthfully. I don’t think he’d cover for Libby.

Now, he might cover for Rove, that I don’t know.

I also still believe, and I think I may be the only one, that Libby’s testimony wrt Russert is actually partially true, in that I think Libby was relaying to Russert a conversation he had with Matthews (and which he attributed to Russert in his testimony), and telling Russert to shut Tweety up. The whole over-the-topness of the conversation sounds a lot more like Tweety, not Russert. I wonder if Tweety didn’t find out from Andrea Mitchell (possibly through hubby?). Or it’s possible that Rove told Tweety early on (maybe on July 7?). Tweety’s such a gossip hound anyway; he’s perfect to plant a leak with.

But of course, Libby couldn’t admit that he had actually talked with Tweety, because I think he believed that Tweety would testify truthfully and say something like, Libby told me to be quiet about that Plame info because it’s possibly classified, or something to that effect. And since Libby’s conversation was to chew out Matthews, not to act as a source, Matthews couldn’t fight any subpoena on First amendment or reporter’s privelege grounds, making it more likely that he’d talk before the election.

The other possibility is that Matthews is one of the mystery 5 that Libby’s going to call as witnesses.

Man, I would kill to know exactly what Matthews told to Fitzgerald.

Hey QS

I think it’s definitely possible, that rather than a Karl indictment, we’ll see a someone else indictment. But I don’t think so. I think we’ll see a Karl and someone else indictment, probably a little further out than predicted, but I think Fitz is going to put together a conspiracy charge.

I’ve been totally convinced by Jim E/TM/ew’s point that the Vandehei article serves as a milder version of the deflation strategy, though it’s probably more of a hedge than it was with Libby, who almost certainly knew he was about to be indicted. It’s milder also because the facts to be revealed are probably milder than in Libby’s case. What we’re getting is a heads-up on facts that will possibly be included in the indictment, detailing how engaged Rove was on the Wilson pushback within the White House, possibly, possibly including discussion of Wilson’s wife – and it’s reasonable to imagine that stuff in the indictment because it might be included to make it seem very implausible that Rove would have forgotten the conversation with Cooper on the matter.

It’s also a really good point that the article makes clear that it must have been more than two aides – more than just Libby and Hadley – that Rove communicated on the matter about. Where’s that old article quoting a White House aide saying that Rove, asked why they were going after Wilson, responded, â€Because he’s a Democratâ€? Or is that Wilson’s book, reporting something second-hand?

Oh and on talking points..these are from July 12, 2005 when all the news about Rove was breaking.